What Is Christian Orthodoxy?

[mymistake]

If I'm to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, then I'm going to have to use passages throughout the Bible.

 

Just the opposite. If you are going to defend Trinity then you must ignore passages throughout the Bible. Trinity is anti-Biblical. If you want to establish Trinity as something real then the best way to do that is by presenting objective evidence that there is a God and regarding that God's nature.

 

Trinity is heresy which came along hundreds of years after Paul. As you recall you picked Paul as the author of Christian orthodoxy.

[Antlerman]

Surely if you want an exclusive discussion you can do it via PM. This IMO is pretty selfish as we are already in the Colleseum

 

If you are addressing that to me, I did say that I originally posted that in the Lion's Den, then decided it's better to have here in the Colosseum. The meaning is I prefer discussions that aren't all over the place. This is on topic in here as it questions the validity of calling something Orthodox.

[Antlerman]

Let me copy and paste a post I made in the other forum to kind of explain what I see as being the function of the creeds in defining what Christian orthodoxy is:

 

. I see this as a necessity for any belief system to have clearly defined beliefs, otherwise, what is the point of saying that someone would identify with any group? If there are no boundaries, then it is completely meaningless. This isn't just with Christianity, or any religion, but also with things like political organizations, non-profits, civic clubs, any group.

 

I see certain beliefs within Christianity as being kind of like the "mission statement" of an organization.

 

It is my position that these beliefs define what Christian belief is. This is my understanding of what Christian orthodoxy is.

To make my point clearer from my last post in this thread, reference that with this, how is a consensus of a committee the deciding factor on the boundaries of spiritual matters? If that committee is a group of administrators with cohesion of an organization in mind, there is some validity to rules, but to take their views on matters that are outside their range and make them binding on others is to say the least taking God and putting it in their box, with their limited perspectives and depth. What you end up with is a bureaucratic doctrine, not spiritual knowledge.

[Ouroboros]

I found a list of all the orthodox beliefs: http://www.protomart...rg/believe.html

 

What interested me most there was prayer to the saints. I didn't think that would be an orthodox belief, but it is. According to this list at least.

 

Oh, and apostolic succession. This means that the Pope is the guy.

 

So, TenthDoctor, do you agree that it's a correct orthodox belief to pray to saints and that the Pope is the successor of the apostles?

[Antlerman]

If I could ask, would you please refrain from calling the Holy Spirit "the holy spook," in this thread. Thank you

Our forum, our rules, you really do not expect me to pay reverence to that which I know to be BS do you? I will stick to hs but now at least you know what the s stands for.

Who the hell made you moderator of this forum? I said explicitly on the first page in red letters that I request at the outset that participants try to refrain from this sort of banter in the interest of a reasoned discussion. You must not have read that. To be clear, it's my rules in this thread you disregarded.

[TenthDoctor]

Very little here has anything to do with the trinity doctrine. At best like I said earlier it suggests a binity. You are wasting your time using OT texts as nowhere in Jewish doctrine was there a concept of a dualistic god. There was at a time a wife to yahwe and the OT has both yahwe and elohim. Of course your bible merely translates this as Lord so you would be unaware of this factoid. I already stated the I AM texts are pretty thin evidence and line up with I and the Father are one meaning he allegedly had a concept in his mind who god was (assuming these texts were true)

 

This is not what i was hoping you would do. There are plenty sites out there you can google to get these simplistic answers but you are not discussing this with xians who have little or no knowledge of exegesis and hermeneutics and early biblical history, you should have now figured out we know a heap more than these simple texts and they are not going to sway us.

 

This is a simple regurgitation of what you were taught which is fine in xian circles where warm fuzzies are the order of the day. I know you may find this hard to do or grasp, we need more than this. You have not even offered any history as to how the trinity doctrine evolved probably because you have never bothered to examine where it came from. For that you need to examine what the early church fathers thought as they ess set the orthodoxy of your faith in place. There are folk that don't hold to the trinity doctrine but are still believers.

 

What we have so far is your creed which I assume you got from your church, it does not match the orthodox creed but is a derivative.

 

We have a belief in the trinity which in itself is heretical as far as doctrine goes. In all of Paul's alleged letters, his salutations do not include any concept of a triune god. That was a doctrine that came later.

 

You are reading the NT as if that is the chronological order of how things happened, remember this canon came about ~360CE and that was long after jesus' alleged time frame. By then there were multiple doctrines around, the elders had to create order from the chaos so that a state religion could be enforced.

 

For most here this is common knowledge but you are going to have to dare to read better scholars than us and those are the like of Bart Ehrman and others who are likely no longer believers but have done the leg works and present their findings with oodles of proof. We are merely mentioning the tip of the iceberg or showing you where the rabbit hole starts.

 

To criticise any creed, you have to work back and see where it all started as like it or not that is where it all began. If you really are serious, we should see a max of two posts per day from you as you discover new things and revise your stance. I am in no hurry for your answers but this above was not really a sterling effort. All it is is cherry picking texts that affirm your beliefs which guess what? Makes you no different to all the others who come here with their own cherry picked version of the truth. Sooo Hint.

 

The answers are not in the bible or your corner apologetic store.

 

I had no idea that I was supposed to be trying to convince you of anything other than the fact that I believe that the Bible teaches the Trinity. I wasn't done with my argument -- as my sister wanted to watch something she'd gotten at the library. I sent my post when I'd written what I had written.

 

This topic is supposed to be about what Christian orthodoxy is -- not me trying to convert you to Christianity or to defend against the reasons you don't believe. However, that is what you are bent on wanting to discuss, so I gave you some places where I see the Trinity in the Bible. I hadn't gotten far enough to talk about the Holy Spirit's deity yet.

 

Why is it that you're so convinced that my views are wrong and yours are right, when the original post here specifically stated that we are all to discuss views in this thread as "I think" or "In my opinion," etc. So I'm to listen to you tear apart my beliefs, saying your views are truth, but I'm not allowed to hold to my own opinions as being truth for me?

 

I did not copy and paste my arguments here, except the Bible quotes. Why do you assume that all Christians must be ignorant of putting together an argument for why I believe what I believe? Why do you think it all has to be copied and pasted logic?

 

I acknowledge the fact that people can study the Bible and such and come to the opinion that none of it is real. But it seems as though you do not think that someone can read through the Bible and study and it still believe.

 

I cannot engage in this discussion. I'm sorry. The fight is unfair.

[TenthDoctor]

No my dear, we had oodles of flavours and looking at the TBN crowd we had them all here one time or another. Their doctrines are all the same basically, the only thing possibly different was the influence/baggage the Dutch reformed folk brought with them converting to evangelical and merged into the revised US doctrines, yet they all remained charismatic and pentecostal and had creeds similar to what you posted.

 

The reformed churches they left and created new ones were more horrible in the way of architecture than the DR churches which were relatively humble. When your Jimmy Swaggarts and co started getting their fornications and underhand dealings exposed, the evangelicals took a serious knock and folk left in droves. Some reverted back to origins nut a fair number just quit altogether.

 

Churches here do not get tax breaks like in the US but they are good at placing stuff in trusts and screwing the tax man by essentially showing zero profit. I know I was on the financial committee. We also cannot get personal tax deductions for church tithes. A church cannot register as a charitable organisation unless it has an active charitable program. They are audited heavily if they do do this.

 

What you don't understand is that TBN is not representative of what I mean when I say evangelical Christian. I do not watch TBN, nor do I follow any of the TBN preachers. In fact, those are the very ones that I consider to be false.

 

I do not follow Jimmy Swaggart, nor is he representative of what it means to be an evangelical Christianity in America.

[florduh]

I acknowledge the fact that people can study the Bible and such and come to the opinion that none of it is real. But it seems as though you do not think that someone can read through the Bible and study and it still believe.

Obviously, some people can and do. What is relevant to you and pertinent to this discussion is the fact that people may study diligently, continue believing, but still come to different conclusions than you and THEY HAVE AS MUCH CHANCE OF BEING RIGHT AS YOU DO. Claiming "orthodoxy" doesn't prove you have it right. You can defend your Scriptural position and prove your point, but others can equally prove a point that conflicts with yours. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong.

[TenthDoctor]

 

(I scraped this out of the Lion's Den thread and put it in here as I wish to narrow it to one thread in the Collesum for myself.)

 

This doesn't describe me. Christianity isn't all garbage. Like Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

 

I would love to go into an in depth discussion with you about this, but to be honest I have a hard time engaging in serious discussion when its locust storm of posts and response flying around in all directions. I usually lay low in these sorts of threads in the LD. What I would wish to discuss is that notion of orthodoxy in regards to WHO is calling it that. Put your mind around this for a moment. How things are understood are matters of perception. That perception if dependent on a huge number of variables that influence how a person perceives. If that person has no spiritual depth, and that person is an "expert Bible scholar", that person will not be able to see any spiritual depth, and therefore his idea of Jesus in this case, will reflect back his inexperience beyond his range. Then take that person who lacks depth in this area, and grant him the say so of what all these things mean.... well, you get the picture.

 

I left Christianity because it fails to rise above a literalist, childlike mindset. I will grant, and do recognize those in Christianity with true depth, but they are to say the least not your "orthodox" caliber. They ride that fine line between paying homage to their overseers in the church, and being branded a Heretic.

 

I'll start there with this for you, and hope you are willing to have a discussion with me.

 

First, I need to be clear exactly what you want to discuss.

 

 

I'm willing to discuss whatever it is.

 

If you were talking about the Ghandi quote, then I know why he said it. I know that there are (and have always been) people who claimed to be Christian who do not act like Jesus.

[TenthDoctor]

I acknowledge the fact that people can study the Bible and such and come to the opinion that none of it is real. But it seems as though you do not think that someone can read through the Bible and study and it still believe.

Obviously, some people can and do. What is relevant to you and pertinent to this discussion is the fact that people may study diligently, continue believing, but still come to different conclusions than you and THEY HAVE AS MUCH CHANCE OF BEING RIGHT AS YOU DO. Claiming "orthodoxy" doesn't prove you have it right. You can defend your Scriptural position and prove your point, but others can equally prove a point that conflicts with yours. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong.

 

Fine -- as long as people acknowledge that my beliefs might be right, too. I just don't like engaging in an argument where it's assumed that my view is wrong.

 

What I was saying with Christian orthodoxy is that Christians within Christianity have defined what orthodox is, and it is commonly accepted among most Christians. There is a certain view as to what Christians have said orthodoxy is. I thought this could be discussed objectively because the creeds and such are what define it.

 

I know that there are other belief systems that call themselves Christian. I can acknowledge that they strongly believe in their views, and that they think that their views are right just as much as I believe my views to be right. While I think we can all acknowledge that someone can have a different viewpoint, we all do believe our viewpoint to be the right one, regardless of what that viewpoint is.

 

It's almost impossible to have a discussion with the view in mind that an opposing view could be right. Why? Because we all believe very strongly in what our beliefs are. For ex-Christians, it is fact that Christianity is made up. For me, it is fact that Jesus did exist. The idea that I might be right isn't even on your radar, just as your belief that the Christian God isn't real isn't on my radar.

 

This doesn't mean that we cannot understand that the opposing view is truth to that person.

[TenthDoctor]

 

Just the opposite. If you are going to defend Trinity then you must ignore passages throughout the Bible. Trinity is anti-Biblical. If you want to establish Trinity as something real then the best way to do that is by presenting objective evidence that there is a God and regarding that God's nature.

 

Trinity is heresy which came along hundreds of years after Paul. As you recall you picked Paul as the author of Christian orthodoxy.

 

The Trinity isn't anti-biblical to everyone who reads the Bible. In fact the Christian creeds all affirm it. I believe it is a biblical concept.

 

Yes, there are people who read the Bible and come to a different conclusion. I can acknowledge this.

 

Belief in the Trinity is part of what it means to have Christian orthodoxy, as defined by the creeds. The Trinity is in the creeds, and is one of the essential beliefs that Christian apologists use to determine whether or not a belief system is heretical.

[TenthDoctor]

I found a list of all the orthodox beliefs: http://www.protomart...rg/believe.html

 

What interested me most there was prayer to the saints. I didn't think that would be an orthodox belief, but it is. According to this list at least.

 

Oh, and apostolic succession. This means that the Pope is the guy.

 

So, TenthDoctor, do you agree that it's a correct orthodox belief to pray to saints and that the Pope is the successor of the apostles?

 

I think this is the statement of faith from the Eastern Orthodox denomination, (upper case Orthodox) rather than lower case orthodox.)

 

I meant to discuss the latter rather than the former. I'm sorry about the confusion. Someone, probably in the other thread, provided a dictionary definition of orthodoxy, and asked me which definition I meant. I told them that I was talking about the last definition.

 

Here -- maybe this will provide a better understanding:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/441-orthodox-orthodoxy

 

Orthodoxy

The body of

essential biblical teachings

.

Those who embrace them should be accepted as

Christians

. The opposite of

heresy

. Adj.: "orthodox."

- Source:

A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy

, Christian Research Journal, Summer 1990, by

Robert M. Bowman

.

Note: the term can also refer to orthodoxy in other religions. In the case of Islam, for instance, the above definition could be adapted as follows: ''The body of essential Quranic teachings. Those who embrace them should be accepted at Muslims."

However, this entry deals with Christian orthodoxy.

Difference between 0rthodox and orthodox

 

Note the distinction between ''Orthodox'' (with a capital O) and ''orthodox'' (spelled with a capital O only at the beginning of a sentence):

Orthodox Christianity: Generically the term orthodox

refers to traditional, conservative forms of Christianity, upholding the traditional Christian beliefs about God as a Trinity and about Jesus Christ as taught in the church's early creeds. In this sense orthodox Christianity includes conservative

Roman Catholics

, and

Protestant

,

evangelical Christianity

, and is opposed both to liberal Christianity within Christian denominations and to the teachings of the cults.

More specifically, the term Orthodox (with a capital O; or, Eastern Orthodox) refers to the

state churches of Eastern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean

who split with Roman Catholicism of the West largely over the issue of papal authority.

- Source:

Orthodox Christianity

, Index of Cults and Religions, Watchman Fellowship

Orthodoxy Is Not Necessarily a Clean Bill of Health

 

In reference to the above quote it should be noted that some individuals, movements, organizations, churches and denominations are faithful to biblical teaching and to orthodoxy only to a bare minimum. Many who adhere to the bare minimum of biblical orthodoxy also promote aberrant, unorthodox, extra-biblical and/or otherwise unbiblical teachings and practices - and some even descend into heresy.

Some individuals, churches and movements whose Statement of Faith appears orthodox nevertheless in practice deny and/or change one or more of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith (see: cult of Christianity). Others who claim to subscribe to biblical orthodoxy are so far off in other teachings and practices that their ministries have turned spiritually abusive.

 

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/d01.html

 

That link is far too long to copy and paste here, but it hopefully will provide interested parties a clearer definition of what I mean by orthodoxy.

[TenthDoctor]

 

No not seeing stuff differently, you have to go through the texts and pull out the verses that show he calls himself god and where texts see him as merely a son. bear in mind you are working off plagiarized works so the argument will ess. be moot. We can pretend the NT bible is historically and chronologically correct for the exercise.

 

I defeated this and the trinity doctrine from a NKJV with a simple word search which shows overwhelmingly jesus was NOT considered god but a son of god. The pauline texts seem vacant of the hs in his salutations. I would suggest you do a study of this and then we can discuss the pros and cons as if I were defending my orthodoxy, I am not going to do the legwork.

 

I'm sorry -- I just got really angry after reading the responses that you gave to me.

 

Okay -- let me finish up what I was saying about the Trinity.

 

2 Corinthians 13:14

¹⁴ The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

 

I don't see how this would make any sense if Paul wasn't saying that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are God.

 

Ephesians 2:17-18

¹⁷ AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; ¹⁸ for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

 

I also have trouble seeing how this verse makes any sense if Paul didn't believe that God was triune.

 

Ephesians 3:11-16

¹¹This was in accordance with the ^[a]eternal purpose which He ^[b]carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, ¹² in whom we have boldness and ^[c]confident access through faith ^[d]in Him. ¹³ Therefore I ask ^[e]you not to lose heart at my tribulations on your behalf, ^[f]for they are your glory.

¹⁴ For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, ¹⁵ from whom ^[g]every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, ¹⁶ that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man,

 

Yet again, I don't see how this makes any since if Paul didn't believe that God was triune.

 

Ephesians 5:18-20

¹⁸ And do not get drunk with wine, ^[a]for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, ¹⁹ speaking to ^[b]one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; ²⁰ always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to ^[c]God, even the Father;

 

Again -- the passage wouldn't make much sense unless Paul believed in a triune God.

 

1 Thessalonians 1:1-5

¹ Paul and Silvanus and Timothy,

To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.

² We give thanks to God always for all of you, making mention of you in our prayers; ³ constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and ^[a]steadfastness of hope ^[b]in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father, ⁴ knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you; ⁵ for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we ^[c]proved to be among you for your sake.

 

Again, I have a hard time seeing how this would make sense if God wasn't triune.

 

Zechariah 12:9-11

¹⁰ “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, ^[b]the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

 

This passage has God talking in both first person and third person. To me, this suggests that there are at least two persons who are God.

 

2 Peter 1:1

^1[a]Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same ^[b]kind as ours, ^[c]by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

 

I understand this passage to be using the titles "God" and "Savior" to both be referring to Jesus Christ.

 

Romans 9:5

⁵ whose are the fathers, and from whom is ^[a]the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed ^[b]forever. Amen.

 

This verse seems to say that Christ is over all and is God.

 

Titus 2:13

¹³ looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of ^[a]our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

 

This verse seems to be saying that Jesus Christ is our great God and Savior.

 

Given what I believe about these passages and the previous ones that I listed, it is my personal belief that the Bible calls Jesus God. (There are other passages I could have used, but I think that is enough to show why I believe what I do.)

 

Now...for the Holy Spirit

 

Acts 5:1-11

¹ But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, ² and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s ^[a]full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. ³ But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? ⁴ While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not ^[b]under your control? Why is it that you have ^[c]conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” ⁵ And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. ⁶ The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him.

⁷ Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. ⁸ And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land ^[d]for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, ^[e]that was the price.” ⁹ Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.” ¹⁰ And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. ¹¹ And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things.

 

To me, this suggests that the Holy Spirit is God.

 

2 Corinthians 3:16-18

¹⁶ but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. ¹⁷ Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. ¹⁸ But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

 

To me, this is talking about the Holy Spirit as though He is God.

 

John 14:16-17

¹⁶ I will ask the Father, and He will give you another ^[b]Helper, that He may be with you forever; ¹⁷that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

 

John 15:26-27

²⁶ “When the ^[h]Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, ^27[i]and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.

 

John 16:5-15

⁵ “But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ ⁶ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. ⁷ But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the ^[c]Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. ⁸ And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; ⁹ concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; ¹⁰ and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; ¹¹ and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

¹² “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. ¹³ But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. ¹⁴ He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. ¹⁵ All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

 

In my opinion, when I read about how Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit, it seems like He is talking about the Holy Spirit as someone who is equal to Him, and who has deity.

[mymistake]

 

Just the opposite. If you are going to defend Trinity then you must ignore passages throughout the Bible. Trinity is anti-Biblical. If you want to establish Trinity as something real then the best way to do that is by presenting objective evidence that there is a God and regarding that God's nature.

 

Trinity is heresy which came along hundreds of years after Paul. As you recall you picked Paul as the author of Christian orthodoxy.

 

The Trinity isn't anti-biblical to everyone who reads the Bible. In fact the Christian creeds all affirm it. I believe it is a biblical concept.

 

Yes, there are people who read the Bible and come to a different conclusion. I can acknowledge this.

 

Belief in the Trinity is part of what it means to have Christian orthodoxy, as defined by the creeds. The Trinity is in the creeds, and is one of the essential beliefs that Christian apologists use to determine whether or not a belief system is heretical.

 

 

If that is the case then Christianity didn't exist until the third century and the Roman Catholic church is the author of Christian orthodoxy. You can't have it both ways. If a doctrine that no (edit: first century) New Testament author believed is orthodox then the first century New Testament authors were not Christian. If the first century New Testament authors were the source of Christian orthodoxy then a doctrine invented hundreds of years later is heresy. The key is when. When was the religion formed. You can't form something as one thing then reform it as something completely different and say these two very different things are the same thing.

 

(sorry about any misunderstanding)

[TenthDoctor]

This theologically conservatism seems to me just another offshoot of evangelicals, perhaps a bit more prudish? It is really hard to debate a US evangelical as their doctrines vary so much and most have no clue what the bible says.

 

Actually, those who were theologically conservative first called themselves fundamentalists. However, that term lost its original meaning, and turned into a specific type of Christian. Conservative Christians then started using the term "evangelical." But that term has become hijacked as well..so I guess we'll need a new term.

 

Rubbish. This has been around for some time and is in the pentecostals and charismatics here which by inference means that hold true for the US. I will agree on the last part of latter day apostles as they only appear here in the old apostolic and new apostolic movements, each hating one another and hated by everyone else.

 

The Latter Rain teachings aren't real recent. They have been around since at least the 50's. The problem is that they have now infected many charismatic and Pentecostal denominations.

 

Obviously otherwise I would be a believer still.

 

Really this post simply illustrates what I inferred that folk are free to make shit up as they see fit. You really have not brought anything new to the table and nothing I have not already encountered in RL of at least read about.

 

You obviously believe what you do because you are in a situation where the group think gels with your take on what you perceive to be the truth. It is basically summarized in our favourite quip that "god tends hate everything you(I) do"

 

Why must I be in a group think church in order for me to still hold to Christian beliefs?

 

Perhaps later you can give us your take on gays, abortion and perhaps guns. These IMO are the 3 key doctrines evangelicals all have in common with obvious variances on what they think god says. Bear in mind slandering gays here is taboo.

 

Why are any of those things even relevant to this discussion on orthodoxy, especially the last one about guns? What someone believes about guns has nothing to do with Christianity. Beliefs about homosexuality and abortion are non-essential issues. I can give you my opinion on these things, but it would have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

 

Why do you assume that just because I'm Christian that I'm going to slander gays?

[mymistake]

2 Corinthians 13:14

¹⁴ The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

 

I don't see how this would make any sense if Paul wasn't saying that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are God.

 

May the slap of Larry, the eye poke of Moe and the nuk nuk nuk of Curly be with you all. Clearly that does not make sense is if Larry, Moe and Curly are all the same being. It makes perfect sense if Larry, Moe and Curly are different beings. The author of 2 Corinthians and also the early editors were not Trinitarians.

 

Ephesians 2:17-18

¹⁷ AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; ¹⁸ for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

 

I also have trouble seeing how this verse makes any sense if Paul didn't believe that God was triune.

 

And through Larry we have access to Moe. Larry and Moe are different beings. The author and the early editors of Ephesians were not Trinitarians.

 

1 Thessalonians 1:1-5

¹ Paul and Silvanus and Timothy,

To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.

² We give thanks to God always for all of you, making mention of you in our prayers; ³ constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and ^[a]steadfastness of hope ^[b]in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father, ⁴ knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you; ⁵ for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we ^[c]proved to be among you for your sake.

 

Yet another Bible book that was written and edited by men who did not believe Trinity. Note how only the Father is God. Jesus is a different being. Jesus is the son of God. You see they believed that all men could become sons of God exactly like Jesus and this would not form a thousandinity, nor a millioninity. There was just God and all the sons of God which included Jesus. The Holy Spirit was not a person but a working of God.

 

Zechariah 12:9-11

¹⁰ “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, ^[b]the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

 

This passage has God talking in both first person and third person. To me, this suggests that there are at least two persons who are God.

 

It wasn't even written by a Christian. It supports Judaism.

 

 

2 Peter 1:1

^1[a]Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same ^[b]kind as ours, ^[c]by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

 

I understand this passage to be using the titles "God" and "Savior" to both be referring to Jesus Christ.

 

Yes, but when was it written? Why did it's author feel the need to lie?

 

Romans 9:5

⁵ whose are the fathers, and from whom is ^[a]the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed ^[b]forever. Amen.

 

This verse seems to say that Christ is over all and is God.

 

It doesn't. If Moe blesses Larry forever how can Moe be Larry? Romans was written by someone who did not believe in Trinity.

 

Titus 2:13

¹³ looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of ^[a]our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

 

This verse seems to be saying that Jesus Christ is our great God and Savior.

 

Yes, but why did it's author lie? The late forgeries do support Trinity just like the Great Commission was altered to support Trinity and the Jhona Coma was forged to support Trinity. Why did these Trinitarian authors feel the need to misrepresent themselves as Paul the Apostle or insert their beliefs in the middle of older works?

[TenthDoctor]

The concept of the trinity was a doctrine that evolved and based on the texts, all suggest the prevailing thought was at best a binity of sorts. The text trinitarians use come from the epistles of John 1Jn5 IIRC. However, this is a known add on and even the least qualified scholars agree that this text is not to be used. The other text used is I and the father are one inferring that jesus was claiming divinity. This too is incorrect. This text appears once so it hardly stands up to the oft espoused requirement for two witnesses. With 1Jn5 questioned, the only xref is to what jesus apparently said.

 

The other text offered is the I AM verse. This too is pretty weak in defence of the trinity. To understand this heresy, you would require knowledge of pagan triune gods and see just how similar the two concepts are.

I'm assuming that you were referring to the KJV/NKJV John 5:5-12, which reads this way:

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

 

 

1 John 5:5-12 NASB

⁵ Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? ⁶This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not ^[g]with the water only, but ^[h]with the water and ^[i]with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. ⁷ For there are three that testify: ^{8 [j]}the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are ^[k]in agreement. ⁹ If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. ¹⁰ The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. ¹¹ And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. ¹² He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

 

The only part that is considered an add on here is verse 7 in the KJV version. ⁷ For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. I'm not aware that anything else in that passage is considered to be an add on by anyone. If you take out that verse, the meaning is still the same. The only reason it was taken out of later Bible versions is because verse 7 wasn't found in the oldest copies of the text that they have.

 

I gave my position of why I believe that the Bible teaches the Trinity. You dismissed all my points, and you are entitled to your opinion. But I'm also entitled to my own opinion.

[TenthDoctor]

This would of course require a huge rebuttal on its own encompassing abiogenesis and evolution. I have to assume that you are of the YEC variety xian that hold to the earth is approx 6k years old? You are a creationist if you take the genesis account literally and that places you squarely in the evangelical camp. Even orthodoxy has evolved to make the genesis account allegorical. To go there you would have to have a relatively good scientific acumen but based on this a godunnit probably works for you?

 

I'm completely lost. How does the fact that I believe in God creating the world equate to me being a Young Earth Creationist?

 

Why does evolution have to be in opposition to creationism?

 

I actually believe that while the creation days in Genesis could have been literal 24 hour days, I don't believe that is necessarily the case. And I'm also not opposed to evolution. I think it is entirely possible that God worked through evolution in His creating. I'm not hung up on exactly how or in what time frame God did this. I think that the point of the early chapters of Genesis is to say that God is the Creator.

 

I'm not opposed to the Earth being billions of years old.

 

Yes, I am a creationist because I believe that God created the world.

 

Christian orthodoxy just says that God created the world.

[TenthDoctor]

Pretty odd belief considering that in the genesis account god comes looking for Adam. Pretending this is true, I could take you on a journey that makes this account very believable but I will refrain from that. To challenge this belief, there are numerous conflicting texts where god visits his wrath unto the 4th+ generation and other texts that infer the son is not responsible for his father's sin. Likewise, the allege king David cites in a psalm the whole ritual of animal sacrifice was not what god wanted and is cherry picked by James in the NT (hold that thought)

 

What does God coming looking for Adam have to do with the statement that I made?

 

I don't think the passages where God visited His wrath unto the 4th+ generation has anything to do with the fact that Adam and Eve fell. Original sin is different from the sins people commit every day. I believe that original sin changed what it meant to be human.

 

I don't know of the exact Psalm you were referring to because you didn't give a citation. But if it's the passage I'm thinking of, then I think it was talking more about the heart towards God. Offering sacrifices without meaning is pointless. God wanted peoples hearts.

[TenthDoctor]

(1)He cannot be both. At best he fulfils the mindset in that time of a demi-god and is no different to the pantheon of greco/roman gods that came down to mate with humans creating a demi-god offspring. Even the OT has this chronicled with the nephilim being the offspring of angels mating with humans so this pagan concept precedes xianity but many eons.

 

Let us take the alleged virgin birth which for all intents was BS as we all know how the birds and the bees work now, back then they did not. The female component of the reproduction process was only discovered in the 18th/19th century (look it up). Prior to that, then woman's menses was seen as a secret fountain and something unclean. The seed of man which would be visible to the naked eye via masturbation or a nocturnal ejaculation was seen as the only component of where babies came from women were merely incubators. The ovum was not discovered earlier as one needs a microscope to see it.

 

Now with the linage traced back via Joseph,who was allegedly the step dad you still have a problem with jesus. Mary.

 

Mary was also part of the OS defect so your jesus would only be 1/2 god and 1/2 man. Simple genetics disproves that OS lineage being broken. They will use "facts" like the blood of the mother does not mingle with that of the foetus and the father's contribution defines the blood group and sex (bad science). Furthermore, jewish lineage is matriarchal contrary to to popular belief it being patriarchal. This holds true even today. So where I wonder did the writers of the NT get that patriarchal concept from? Can you figure it out? Pagans.

 

Jesus was not sinless. He broke two commandments warranting a death penalty. Christianity was tacked onto the Hebrew texts to give some modicum of authenticity but they did a piss poor job of it. Your bible contradictions from here on are numerous. In one breath he upholds the law and in another overrides it contrary to Judaic thought and customs which he would have been trained in were he a real. person. No Jew would EVER claim to be god, them's stoning wurds.

 

You say that Jesus can't be both.

 

The creeds and I say otherwise.

 

I don't see how Jesus could have been seen by the writers of the NT as a demi-god. Otherwise, there would be two gods.

 

I don't think that Christianity teaches that the Father mated with Mary. That is a Mormon belief.

 

Yes, I know how the birds and the bees work, but I also happen to believe that God is God, and that He could make it so that a virgin was pregnant...all without any sexual intercourse. I believe in the miracles that are in the Bible.

 

It appears to me as though the people in the Bible had a pretty good idea that it was through sexual intercourse that babies are usually conceived. They didn't need to know all of the details to associate intercourse with babies.

 

There are those who would argue that the genealogy that is listed in Luke's Gospel was through Mary, while the genealogy that is listed in Matthew was Joseph's line.

[mymistake]

I don't think that Christianity teaches that the Father mated with Mary. That is a Mormon belief.

 

Yes, I know how the birds and the bees work, but I also happen to believe that God is God, and that He could make it so that a virgin was pregnant...all without any sexual intercourse. I believe in the miracles that are in the Bible.

 

I'm going to try to tie this into the main topic. Most definitions of Christian orthodoxy include the main Biblical miracles as believed to be real. And the orthodox explanation is the one you give.

 

But because it is not included in traditional Christian orthodoxy it is heresy to wonder why all these amazing miracles of God do not include things like forgiving everyone without the need to accept Jesus. It really isn't that fantastic of a miracle.

 

There are those who would argue that the genealogy that is listed in Luke's Gospel was through Mary, while the genealogy that is listed in Matthew was Joseph's line.

 

However the actual words in Luke and Matthew both claim that they are Joseph's line. This seems strange if the Bible authors were Trinitarians. Why include any line of Joseph since Joseph was not the father? In my opinion someone altered the gospels after the fact. They changed a few words around to remove Joseph as the father of Jesus and in so doing remove the reason for the genealogies to be there in the first place.

[Ouroboros]

I found a list of all the orthodox beliefs: http://www.protomart...rg/believe.html

 

What interested me most there was prayer to the saints. I didn't think that would be an orthodox belief, but it is. According to this list at least.

 

Oh, and apostolic succession. This means that the Pope is the guy.

 

So, TenthDoctor, do you agree that it's a correct orthodox belief to pray to saints and that the Pope is the successor of the apostles?

 

I think this is the statement of faith from the Eastern Orthodox denomination, (upper case Orthodox) rather than lower case orthodox.)

 

I meant to discuss the latter rather than the former. I'm sorry about the confusion. Someone, probably in the other thread, provided a dictionary definition of orthodoxy, and asked me which definition I meant. I told them that I was talking about the last definition.

 

Here -- maybe this will provide a better understanding:

http://www.apologeti...hodox-orthodoxy

 

Orthodoxy

The body of

essential biblical teachings

.

Those who embrace them should be accepted as

Christians

. The opposite of

heresy

. Adj.: "orthodox."

- Source:

A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy

, Christian Research Journal, Summer 1990, by

Robert M. Bowman

.

Note: the term can also refer to orthodoxy in other religions. In the case of Islam, for instance, the above definition could be adapted as follows: ''The body of essential Quranic teachings. Those who embrace them should be accepted at Muslims."

However, this entry deals with Christian orthodoxy.

Difference between 0rthodox and orthodox

 

Note the distinction between ''Orthodox'' (with a capital O) and ''orthodox'' (spelled with a capital O only at the beginning of a sentence):

Orthodox Christianity: Generically the term orthodox

refers to traditional, conservative forms of Christianity, upholding the traditional Christian beliefs about God as a Trinity and about Jesus Christ as taught in the church's early creeds. In this sense orthodox Christianity includes conservative

Roman Catholics

, and

Protestant

,

evangelical Christianity

, and is opposed both to liberal Christianity within Christian denominations and to the teachings of the cults.

More specifically, the term Orthodox (with a capital O; or, Eastern Orthodox) refers to the

state churches of Eastern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean

who split with Roman Catholicism of the West largely over the issue of papal authority.

- Source:

Orthodox Christianity

, Index of Cults and Religions, Watchman Fellowship

Orthodoxy Is Not Necessarily a Clean Bill of Health

 

In reference to the above quote it should be noted that some individuals, movements, organizations, churches and denominations are faithful to biblical teaching and to orthodoxy only to a bare minimum. Many who adhere to the bare minimum of biblical orthodoxy also promote aberrant, unorthodox, extra-biblical and/or otherwise unbiblical teachings and practices - and some even descend into heresy.

Some individuals, churches and movements whose Statement of Faith appears orthodox nevertheless in practice deny and/or change one or more of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith (see: cult of Christianity). Others who claim to subscribe to biblical orthodoxy are so far off in other teachings and practices that their ministries have turned spiritually abusive.

 

http://www.apologeti...ex.org/d01.html

 

That link is far too long to copy and paste here, but it hopefully will provide interested parties a clearer definition of what I mean by orthodoxy.

Okay. So let's get this straight, we're talking about your orthodoxy, not Orthodoxy as the original churches made orthodoxy to be. They're heretic because they're not your kind of orthodox. Again, that's you making the judgment, not an objective truth, view, or book.

 

What you're telling me is that when they say they're "Orthodox" they don't mean they are "orthodox" but heretic, from your point of view. But since your point of view is God's point of view, then your "orthodoxy" is God's orthodoxy, and their "Orthodoxy" is not.

 

You're only arguing "potayto" v "potaato". Your truth is the true truth because you are the truth speaker of God. While other believers of those you consider heretic, are heretic because you know the true truth ™. Praise God!

 

I'm glad that we're finally are talking to someone with a direct pipeline to God's ear.

 

So tell me something about me that only God could tell you. You should be able to do some pretty cool stuff by asking God to know some secrets.

 

If you can't, then don't bother try to convince me you got the magical absolute truth.

[pratt]

still don't understand the term orthodox in this thread,,,

 

many moons ago, as i understand orthodox is what is acceptable and acknowledged by main stream christianity, meaning the truine god as described in the creeds and the inerrancy of the66 books of the bible. that was the GENERAL idea. Any deviation from these primary principle would consider non-orthodox that is heresy. Differences in practices such as charismatics and pentecoastals, to my knowledge and to methodist upbringing, is still orthodox.

 

NO?

[TenthDoctor]

I found a list of all the orthodox beliefs: http://www.protomart...rg/believe.html

 

What interested me most there was prayer to the saints. I didn't think that would be an orthodox belief, but it is. According to this list at least.

 

Oh, and apostolic succession. This means that the Pope is the guy.

 

So, TenthDoctor, do you agree that it's a correct orthodox belief to pray to saints and that the Pope is the successor of the apostles?

 

I think this is the statement of faith from the Eastern Orthodox denomination, (upper case Orthodox) rather than lower case orthodox.)

 

I meant to discuss the latter rather than the former. I'm sorry about the confusion. Someone, probably in the other thread, provided a dictionary definition of orthodoxy, and asked me which definition I meant. I told them that I was talking about the last definition.

 

Here -- maybe this will provide a better understanding:

http://www.apologeti...hodox-orthodoxy

 

Orthodoxy

The body of

essential biblical teachings

.

Those who embrace them should be accepted as

Christians

. The opposite of

heresy

. Adj.: "orthodox."

- Source:

A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy

, Christian Research Journal, Summer 1990, by

Robert M. Bowman

.

Note: the term can also refer to orthodoxy in other religions. In the case of Islam, for instance, the above definition could be adapted as follows: ''The body of essential Quranic teachings. Those who embrace them should be accepted at Muslims."

However, this entry deals with Christian orthodoxy.

Difference between 0rthodox and orthodox

 

Note the distinction between ''Orthodox'' (with a capital O) and ''orthodox'' (spelled with a capital O only at the beginning of a sentence):

Orthodox Christianity: Generically the term orthodox

refers to traditional, conservative forms of Christianity, upholding the traditional Christian beliefs about God as a Trinity and about Jesus Christ as taught in the church's early creeds. In this sense orthodox Christianity includes conservative

Roman Catholics

, and

Protestant

,

evangelical Christianity

, and is opposed both to liberal Christianity within Christian denominations and to the teachings of the cults.

More specifically, the term Orthodox (with a capital O; or, Eastern Orthodox) refers to the

state churches of Eastern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean

who split with Roman Catholicism of the West largely over the issue of papal authority.

- Source:

Orthodox Christianity

, Index of Cults and Religions, Watchman Fellowship

Orthodoxy Is Not Necessarily a Clean Bill of Health

 

In reference to the above quote it should be noted that some individuals, movements, organizations, churches and denominations are faithful to biblical teaching and to orthodoxy only to a bare minimum. Many who adhere to the bare minimum of biblical orthodoxy also promote aberrant, unorthodox, extra-biblical and/or otherwise unbiblical teachings and practices - and some even descend into heresy.

Some individuals, churches and movements whose Statement of Faith appears orthodox nevertheless in practice deny and/or change one or more of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith (see: cult of Christianity). Others who claim to subscribe to biblical orthodoxy are so far off in other teachings and practices that their ministries have turned spiritually abusive.

 

http://www.apologeti...ex.org/d01.html

 

That link is far too long to copy and paste here, but it hopefully will provide interested parties a clearer definition of what I mean by orthodoxy.

Okay. So let's get this straight, we're talking about your orthodoxy, not Orthodoxy as the original churches made orthodoxy to be. They're heretic because they're not your kind of orthodox. Again, that's you making the judgment, not an objective truth, view, or book.

 

What you're telling me is that when they say they're "Orthodox" they don't mean they are "orthodox" but heretic, from your point of view. But since your point of view is God's point of view, then your "orthodoxy" is God's orthodoxy, and their "Orthodoxy" is not.

 

You're only arguing "potayto" v "potaato". Your truth is the true truth because you are the truth speaker of God. While other believers of those you consider heretic, are heretic because you know the true truth ™. Praise God!

 

I'm glad that we're finally are talking to someone with a direct pipeline to God's ear.

 

So tell me something about me that only God could tell you. You should be able to do some pretty cool stuff by asking God to know some secrets.

 

If you can't, then don't bother try to convince me you got the magical absolute truth.

 

I didn't say that the Eastern Orthodox Christians were heretics. I was trying to talk about the distinction in definition between Orthodox and orthodox. "Orthodox" with a capital "O" is talking about a specific denomination.

 

"orthodox" as I'm using it and as it is used on most Christian apologetics is cross-denominational.

 

No, Orthodox Christians are not heretics. I posted the Eastern version of the Nicene creed when I was trying to show what orthodox Christianity is.

 

Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in the creeds, which makes them orthodox, just as the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestants are orthodox.

 

Stop trying to read stuff into my posts that I do not say. Thank you.

[TenthDoctor]

still don't understand the term orthodox in this thread,,,

 

many moons ago, as i understand orthodox is what is acceptable and acknowledged by main stream christianity, meaning the truine god as described in the creeds and the inerrancy of the66 books of the bible. that was the GENERAL idea. Any deviation from these primary principle would consider non-orthodox that is heresy. Differences in practices such as charismatics and pentecoastals, to my knowledge and to methodist upbringing, is still orthodox.

 

NO?

 

Thank you. Yes, that is the definition of orthodoxy that I've been trying to state in this thread.