I have a red flag feeling when I see the word "trinity".
I find it can be traced back to Tertullian's vain philosophies and deceit that Paul warns about. Who knows where Tertullian got it but the trinity is not a new doctrine , it can be seen in Babylon with Baal, Ishtar and Tammuz. Christian theology was largely organized and nurtured in the schools of Alexandria, and Alexandria was not only the meeting place of East and West, it was also the place where the decrepit theology of Egypt was revivified by contact with the speculative philosophy of Greece. The library at Alexandria burned and the first person blamed for the destruction is none other than Julius Caesar himself. In 48 BC, Caesar was pursuing Pompey into Egypt when he was suddenly cut off by an Egyptian fleet at Alexandria.
This however is what I do believe about the Godhead..
Genesis 1 God created....
Exodus 3:4 I AM
Isaiah 43 :1-2, 10-15 Redeemer, no Savior beside me.
Isaiah 46:9-11 No other God , end from beginning
Isaiah 49:16 I have inscribed you on my palms.
John 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word and the Word....
John 8:58 Before Abraham was , I AM.
John 14:9-11 He that has seen me has seen the Father.
John 1:18 in the bosom of the Father
Colossians 2:9 ALL the fullness of the Godhead bodily
1 Corinthians 8:6 For us there is ONE God, the FATHER.
Matthew 3:11: John the Baptist said, " I baptize you with water. But after me comes One who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the holy spirit and fire!!"
A born from above saint is called and chosen and accepts Jesus as His Savior from sin: Jesus then baptizes them with the holy spirit who inspires them to read and understand God's Word which clearly states that Jesus is our Great God and Savior!!
I'm not one to judge anybody based on doctrinal beliefs, that's one reason why I don't say "Trinity" very often, because I believe it's a topic better explained that trying to sum up with one word or name.
Also, I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but I see God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as linked, but I also see the Church as part of that chain linked together. Of course we hear it mentioned as a "Vine" in the Bible. Altogether, it should all be unified in purpose, even when roles can be varying.
"because I believe it's a topic better explained that trying to sum up with one word or name."
>And the fact even trinitarian's can't all agree! There must be at least a half a dozen different doctrines of the Trinity.<
"...I see God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as linked, but I also see the Church as part of that..."
.>I agree! However: How a person believes they are linked is NEVER taught as a tenet of salvation.
Therefore when people make it a tenet of salvation, they are wrong whether they are right on the doctrine of the Trinity or not - they are wrong. It is not a tenet of salvation how a person believes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are united.
The first red flag should be all the Christians murdered and persecuted at the hands of other Christians because they had a different Trinitarian doctrine. Wow! That should give great pause that Satan is in the mix when Christians are killing Christians!
You've seen a bit of this here in the last 24 hours having a front row seat and witnessing first hand what has happened to me as I put forth alternative Biblical views. In a different time and place these people would burn me at the stake.
“I know he is a Trinitarian. I suspect for good reason, he would be out of a job if he wasn't!”
End first chuckk quote
Now when people have called Chuckk out with a lot less he retreats into a heap a wailin’ an whinin’.
So Chuck you don’t even know the guy but he must be just in it for the bucks. Hmmmmm
Ohhhhhhh, but AFTER Chuckk unfairly denigrates the guy, Chuckk says:
“Whether that is true or not idk.”
End Chuckk Mucks quote
So Chuckk >>doesn’t know<< the guy is in it for the money but Chuckk feels he may as well paint the guy up as a opportunistic charlatan anyway who just needs to keep his job.
Come on Chuckk, stop muckin’ up the forums with your judgementalisms
Also Chuckk, lets just stop whining about the attacks you deserve, since you think it’s ok to attack those you admit doesn’t deserve it
Oh woow, then Chuckk says:
“ I don't judge others based on their acceptance or denial of Trinitarian doctrine”.
,Christ or Messiah or Masheach in Hebrew means **ANOINTED ONE** and according to God's Word the Christ had to be **ANOINTED** from on high in full view of many.
Matthew 3:11: John the Baptist said, "I baptize you with water. But after me comes One who is more powerful than I whose sandals I am no worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the holy spirit and fire!!
Matthew 3:13-17: Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter Him saying, "I need to be baptized by you {With the holy spirit} and do you come to me? Jesus replied , "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness!". Then John consented. As soon as Jesus was baptized He went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on Him {The ANOINTING} And a voice from heaven said, "This is My Son, whom I love, with Him I am well pleased."
You say I denigrate him? How? Belief in a particular or any Trinity doctrine is NOT a tenet of salvation. So why rock the boat? Why not accept a trinitarian doctrine? He is rocking the boat enough with his cutting edge material. I'm just pointing out because of people like you: It would be professional suicide for him not to accept one of the many Trinitarian doctrines. And I'm glad he does, otherwise I would of never heard of him or read his books.
Btw: Your post revels a vast ignorance of peer reviewed material and how academia really works.
"Christ or Messiah or Masheach in Hebrew means **ANOINTED ONE** and according to God's Word the Christ had to be **ANOINTED** from on high in full view of many. "
Sorry prophetic, you've been reading too much Wikipedia. In Hebrew Mashiach means to "smear with oil". As was King David (anointed with oil). The Holy Spirit descending in bodily form is sending a different message: "“You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
Prophetic, you've inserted an editorial into your verse to suit your personal belief system.
"But John tried to deter Him saying, "I need to be baptized by you {With the holy spirit} and do you come to me?"
Jesus came to John to be baptized in water, because John was baptizing in water. It was the Father who baptized Jesus with the Holy Spirit.
Btw:
The word "Baptism" is a Greek word which means to immerse.
In Hebrew it is "Mikveh" an immersion.
There is NO mashah.
However: I'll give you this from the Encyclopedia Judaica :
"In Israel, anointment conferred upon the king the ru'aḥ YHWH ("the spirit of the Lord"), i.e., His support (I Sam. 16:13–14; 18:12), strength (Ps. 89:21–25), and wisdom (Isaiah 11:1–4; see *Messiah ). The king absorbs divine attributes through unction. The anointment of the high priest served an entirely different function. It conferred neither ru'aḥ nor any other divine attribute. Moses, for example, transferred his powers (by hand-laying) upon a ru'aḥ-endowed Joshua (Num. 27:18–20), but when he transfers the high priest's authority from Aaron to his son Eleazar, these spiritual features are conspicuously absent (Num. 20:25 ff.). The high priest's anointment is otherwise designated by the verb kadesh (qaddesh; "to sanctify"). Indeed, the anointment "sanctifies" the high priest by removing him from the realm of the profane and empowering him to operate in the realm of the sacred, i.e., to handle the sancta, such as the oracle. The high priest was anointed in conjunction with the cult objects (Ex. 40:9–15), and the latter practice is found in the oldest portions of the Bible (anointment of pillars, Gen. 28:18; 31:13; 35:14). The story of Solomon's anointment by the high priest Zadok (I Kings 1:39) leads us to the assumption that the royal unction is a derivative of the unction of the high priest. The story could not be an interpolation of the priestly editors, since the latter would by their own laws have condemned Zadok to death (by God) for the crime of anointing a zar, a non-priest (Ex. 30:33). On the contrary, this incident complements the image of the king in the historical narratives: since he may officiate at the sacred altar like a priest (e.g., I Kings 3:4; 8:63–64), why should he not be similarly anointed with the sacred oil?
@prophetic, sorry I forgot to include this in the last post:
Mikveh (Hebrew, מִקְוֶה), literally translated as a "collection" or "gathering", is a pool or bath of clear water in which immersion renders ritually clean a person who has become ritually unclean.
