Posted on 04/16/2013 8:20:04 PM PDT by DouglasKC
At a glance, I see the name Gibbon multiple times as well as the names of other references I do not immediately recognize.
Gibbon was an historian, not a biblical scholar. As far I as I know, Gibbon was not skilled in the languages required of biblical scholarship and whatever references he provides are unlikely to be Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew texts. I therefore presume similar of the other references that I am not familiar with.
For some reason, you choose to place your trust in the opinion of whoever wrote the article you post for your threads who in turn chose to place his trust in the opinion of men unskilled in biblical scholarship.
Are you sure that you have proven all things?
The fact that Edward Gibbons is a historian is highlighted in the article:
The preface to historian Edward Gibbons' History of Christianity sums up the Greek influence on the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by stating:
Since it IS a historical question the opinions of people who actually study history would seem to be valid sources of information.
You may not agree with or recognize the sources but that doesn't invalidate them or their work.
I'm not sure if you even know UCG's position on death. I did a quick study on Epicurean philosophy and no, UCG's teaching on death does NOT follow Epicureus. He didnt' believe in an afterlife. The bible teaches, and I believe, in a resurrection. I won't even bother to look at your other sources since you apparently didn't even do as much research as I did... :-)
Thanks....great last paragraph!
If the latter, then I do agree with Ingersoll.
Specifically the 1274 bit.... Do you believe that statement and date ?
First of all thank you for your thoughts.
Let me explain a little bit of my background too...I was never a member of Worldwide Church of God and from what I hear, I'm glad I wasn't. There certainly seemed to be a structure or organization there that to many resulted in abusive behavior. There also seemed to be a cultic aspect to the structure and organization for many. Another problem I saw was that because of the hierarchical system in place many opinions or speculations often became synonymous with doctrine. Ultimately these are the reasons why World Wide Church of God ultimately fell.
So I can completely understand the animosity of many people on these threads towards me. But at the same time there was a solid foundation of biblical teaching within that group.
I belong to United because they kept the sound biblical doctrine and jettisoned the speculation and hierarchical system.
Now on to the trinity. Number one, despite the protests on this thread and other threads it's clear that it's a late addition to Christianity. That alone should make it suspect...it's non-biblical in origin.
But the biggest thing (and this is going to for sure be twisted because it's going to be difficult to give it the justice needed in a few words) the biggest thing is that it completely alters the concept of our relationship with the our father and with our elder brother Jesus Christ.
How? We know that things on earth are often shadows of the heavenly. God created and designed us to have families. Man and women get married and have kids. Go forth and multiply.
We know that Christ often used the analogy of the church being his bride. The purpose of this union is to produce children, children of God. Heirs and joint heirs with Christ. We, the children of God, will be of the same substance as God. This is borne out in scripture (1 John 3:2). We will be in a loving relationship and heirs of all things. Again all scriptural. What the trinity concept does is that it puts the future children of God "outside" of this family relationship. If we think of the Godhead as a family, then it's clear that God's children will part of that family...part of the Godhead. With the closed trinity system and the false addition of the "holy spirit" to a family it closes it off. It takes it from a personal, reigning, royal family, to an amorphous blob with no relation to family or love.
This makes it much more difficult for believe in and love the Lord with all our heart soul and mind and to love each other as ourselves.
I know this was inadequate but hopefully I got the main points across.]
The idea that the Trinity is not Scripturally supported is false.
There are quite a few Biblical concepts which aren't described by a specific word. You won't find the word "Bible" there....does this mean there is no Bible? No. "Omniscient", "omnipotent", and "omnipresent" are all words used to describe attributes of God. Because they are not specifically found in Scripture, does this invalidate their truth? Of course not.
There are other words not mentioned in Scripture such as "atheist", "divinity", "incarnation", and "monotheism." Does this mean they're invalid concepts? No.
The Trinity-----or simply, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit----is a true concept that is no LESS true just because we don't see the word used to describe it.
Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit "
2 Cor. 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. "
Eph. 4:4-7 "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift."
Jude 20-21 "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."
I'm sorry my friend if you took it that way. If you think I'm in error concerning my belief in the afterlife and what Epicureun philosophy taught let me know.
I took it as an ironic and humorous post on the absurdity of using a doctrine developed over hundreds of years as a criteria for salvation.
I actually enjoyed reading your post...you make some good point that I agree with. Not the quoted paragraph of course.:)
It's difficult to post material like this precisely because it is a snapshot of a particular piece of a belief system. It's not designed to teach or show one the entirety of the gospel. It's designed to show one aspect that perhaps one person who is being called by God will find inspirational or enlightening.
This particular article is a chapter from a much larger booklet that advocates that the bible teaches a binitarian, and not a trinitarian view, of the Godhead. Taken by itself it is incomplete so I certainly can understand your frustration and perhaps some of the conclusions you've come to.
Wait. Doesn't everybody?
Ah, well my experience was no other consideration was given to anyone who did not adhere to the doctrine. Abusive is a good description as to the 'church' teaching, mainly because the flesh beings decided what Scripture was taught and the rest was categorically dismissed and ignored. To question automatically caused an intervention for allowing the devil to tempt ones mind. Anyway I could write a book, but that would not really serve any purpose.
Our Heavenly Father had Isaiah pen (Isaiah 7:14) that a virgin would conceive. Yes, I am aware some reject this prophecy and claim the Scripture is not speaking of Christ the promise. But hey each to their own. This promised only Begotten Son was to be called Immanuel, which means 'God with us'. This was a sign, there are many signs planted all through the Old Testament, which Paul says were Written for our warning as to what would be again to end this flesh age. (I Corinthians 10:11) And we are indeed repeating that same activities as was Written down all those many years ago.
I do not dispute the idea of the Heavenly Father as Head of His family. Now, until 'judgment day' we have opportunity to spent eternity with Him, as His loving children. At present there is only one named entity, the devil and a numbered of his followers that have been already judged to death. None of this bunch have opportunity to pass through this flesh age, born of woman. John 3... To be born of woman is the first requirement to 'see' the kingdom of God. This begs the question when were all souls created. They certainly already existed back in the garden of Eden as the Adam was not alive until the breath of life which means soul was breathed into the Adam's nostrils.
All souls were created by and belong to the Heavenly Father all churches notwithstanding. (Ezekiel 18:4) Our scientific community readily admits they are not able to discern, test, or model the spirit body. Paul says there are some souls that return to the Maker that sent them already judged as over-comers, say like Noah, Abraham and an unnumbered mass. I believe all souls were created at the same time and when this flesh body returns to the dust from which it comes that soul all of them returns to the Maker.
Now as far as Christ being our brother, I do not and cannot consider Him, as God with us in a flesh body as a brother... He is our kinsman redeemer, and no other entity either in spiritual or flesh form can or will replace Him. He is the 'tree of life' spoken of in Genesis and in Revelation... there is none other like Him.
Once the last willing soul begins their flesh journey this flesh age is done. And no I have no idea how many or when the last soul will begin their journey at conception. Only The Heavenly Father knows that.
I do not have animosity toward you. That might be the impression some take when their traditions get rebuffed for getting in the way of having the meat of the Word served.
I can remember as if it were yesterday where I was and what I was doing when my own flesh father told me we would not be going back to 'the church'. I know first hand what it is to be deceived into another person's traditions. As in anything all was not lost because at least I was required to study as much of the Old Testament as the New.
I was greatly disappointed to discover that after all my youth being told the Bible says this earth is only around six thousand years old to find that is not what the Bible in any hint, direct or indirectly states. So as I take this flesh journey I am wary of flesh when it comes to their old or young traditions that make the WORD of God null and void.
I think we probably use different terms for this but I don't want to take the discussion too far off track...
Now as far as Christ being our brother, I do not and cannot consider Him, as God with us in a flesh body as a brother... He is our kinsman redeemer, and no other entity either in spiritual or flesh form can or will replace Him. He is the 'tree of life' spoken of in Genesis and in Revelation... there is none other like Him.
I try to choose my words based on scripture (not always successfully). I use the term brother because of this scripture:
Rom 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
I do not have animosity toward you. That might be the impression some take when their traditions get rebuffed for getting in the way of having the meat of the Word served.
I hold no animosity toward you either. As your own experience shows holding an unpopular belief among those that believe differently is going to draw fire justified or not.
Anyways thanks for sharing just your thoughts. I'm sorry about the experiences you had. I was at dinner with an older man last Saturday night. He was telling me about his experience in the old WWCG in particular where a minister treated him like a naughty school child...made me upset to know that people who call themselves ministers of the Lord could be so callous in their treatment of others. I know some of them have repented and are deeply sorry about getting caught up in that. Some probably never will. But this isn't a problem unique to the COG's...it exists throughout humanity.
Your ability to stare 2000 years of history in the face and instead make stuff up out of whole cloth is frankly stunning.
Peace Be With You.
What?? This was a response to this:
"I took it as an ironic and humorous post on the absurdity of using a doctrine developed over hundreds of years as a criteria for salvation.
I'm not following...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.